Power of Advertising: Individual or Corporation?

As a new member venturing into the blogosphere, I was taken back by the amount of blogs specifically dedicated to analyzing all angles of the advertising world. In my previous posts, I have discussed both the advertising measures taken by companies, in particular Abercrombie and Fitch, and also the actions taken by individuals who have branded corporate logo tattoos on themselves. Today, I wish to further this conversation by examining where the power really lies in the advertising industry. Some suggest the company has the upper hand because they create advertisements that sucker us into buying product. Others propose the idea that the power is in the person, who essentially chooses between all products, either to conform and buy the most highly advertised product or choose one that perhaps, isn’t as widely promoted. The first post, “Personal Advertising” focuses on advertising as a part of the “American Psyche” and the idea that corporate advertising has not only taken over public spaces, but also individuals personal space, for example, one’s clothes. The next post, however, “People, Not Labels,” studies advertising in terms of individuals, and their ability in the free world to make their own choices and decisions when buying a product. Ultimately, does the power truly lie in the individual who, against all odds has to decide how they want to represent their identity or is it in the corporations whose main function are to find ways of creating lifestyle brands as to lure the customer in for the during of their whole lifetime? Should such corporations have the ability to so greatly influence and possibly impeded in the daily routine of individual expression or should the audience become more aware and accustomed to the ways by which companies target market their product to distinguish those vulnerable customers to whom their advertising technique was centered upon?

Personal Advertising
Comments:
Thank you for your informational post regarding advertising and its slow progression into the “American psyche”. I wonder what the future holds for individuals not wanting to conform to the principles of trademarks and the idea no matter what you wear or where you travel you are consciously or unconsciously bombarded by labels, billboards, or advertisements whose main motive is to catch your attention, direct it away from that which you were thinking before, and let it resonate to the point where one will find themselves wanting to buy product to fit the label and standard set forth through advertising. Do you see a real danger in the labels that corporations are trying to coerce into our everyday lives?

I agree with your frustration towards those individuals who stamp a name, without any legitimate connection to their identity or representation, for say, on the back of their truck, however what is the difference between choosing to put the name on the back of their truck and choosing the brand a corporate logo tattoo one may or may feel reflect their individualism. In the mere process of branding a corporate tattoo on their body, they are subjecting themselves to conformity, not necessarily those individualistic ideas that may have been discussed verbalized, for example, in the commercials or advertisements. My last post centered on Apple computers and their advertising campaign that sold the “Think Different”, idea. Well, how different can one possibly be thinking when I look around the classroom and all I can see is the Apple logo. In a world where the sale of a product, in every area of life, parallels and constitutes the worth of the company, I’m not sure I completely see the difference in branding a corporate logo tattoo on your body because it’s only one step further than wearing the logo on your outfits every single day. I do think the corporations have it completely wrong, as you concluded in your post. They should be paying us to wear their label! However, the only reason these conglomerations are not is because they want to maintain the power of advertising, to direct a specific message to a explicit type of person.

People, Not Labels
Comment:
First of all, I would like to thank you for your interesting remarks about advertising and the power of the people within the industry. This is a topic that is obviously pertinent to every human being and the construction of their identity. Humans choose specific traits or labels that they want to include in their identity because for example, the popular kids in class had it or, the commercial or catchy song lingers in your head until it eventually consumes you. Certainly it is of great importance for the audience to recognize and be aware of the directedness of such messages and the possible vulnerability to some messages.

You raised a few questions to which you later answered in your post on the subject of dropping the idea of a target market. First and foremost, I think that, in order for any message to successfully reach society, the message must be either funny, hard to forget (for example the Chihuahua in the Taco Bell advertisements) or directed towards a target viewer. I’m unsure if whether anything would be persuasive without having one of those three mentioned criteria. However, considering the present day generation of the “I want it now” mentality, one may or may not be about to successfully devise a marketing technique to suit the needy mentality that is quickly sweeping into our future and our children. Also, I agree with your thoughts on the fear of thinking about people as targets and essentially losing sight of the ability to see them as real living beings, that is the main worry, I feel, for the future of advertising. When will the cost of advertising become so high and with such little benefits for the company, that we do away with the concept? I’m not sure that that is in store for the future because society has naturalized these messages to make them now appear normal, with little shock value. Consumers, regardless of the cost of a product will definitely think of per say a catchy song, a funny tune in the commercial or a sexy woman in the process of choosing a product. Maybe advertising won’t ever lose its spunk?

Advertising and Individualism: Tattoos as 'Walking Advertisements'

In the global quest of large corporations searching to discover new revenues for advertising, corporate logo tattoos have emerged as an innovative way of publicizing a company while also revealing individual expression. Currently, in all corners of the world there are many ways of visibly expressing individuality, however, recently, “Tattoos Advertisements Turn People into Walking Billboards” where one can brand a company logo on their body and it will likely lead to free product or monetary incentive. The human billboard trend initially made an appearance in professional sports in 2001 when the professional boxer Bernard Hopkins was paid $100,000 by the online casino GoldenPalace.com to wear a temporary tattoo on his back during his championship fight with Felix Trinidad. As with most risky advertising, the trend sought to outdo its primary representation and eventually in 2003, twenty-two year old Jim Nelson sold the space on the back of his head for $7,000 to CI Host, a web hosting service and the transaction landed him a permanent tattoo of the company logo on the back of his head. Thus began the era of corporate logo tattoo advertising, an era filled with multi-faceted identity portrayal that resulted in taking advertising to a dangerously new dimension.

Advertisements of all kind are used to claim one united thesis that clearly reflects the company ideals and provokes a wide-ranging audience to buy their product. Tattoos, previous to the introduction of corporate logo tattoos, were also meant to argue or make claims for a particular individual because people generally tend to get tattoos of the things that define their lives. Throughout history the purpose of tattoos in society has varied from culture to culture. Often times, tattoos express the significant rituals and traditions of a society and they have the ability to tell a story about the age in which they are seen. According to the National Alliance of Gang Investigator Association, in the past, tattoos were often associated with the personality of a rebel, a motorcycle gang, or someone that was in a way anti-culture. Those that inked themselves did so with a unique or meaningful symbol they created of researched. Consequently, the purpose of the act was very personal and separated them from the norm or mainstream culture. However, when tattoos are stamped on people, the human body becomes a venue of advertising for corporations and the important distinction between self and consumerism becomes blurred because now both can make the same arguments advertisements alone were intended to make. Additionally, the emergence of corporate logo tattoos as “walking billboards” that have the ability to market anything from wine or energy drinks to cars has fundamentally altered the purpose of a tattoo placing it “mainstream” and changing the dynamics from personal expression to social identification. The new trend has opened an outlet whereby one can represent social identity, however it has done this at the expense of personal individuality.

The trend has quietly crept into American psyche and consumed a niche in the advertising world because the media, as with all trends, quickly acts to normalize the oddness of the idea by including the trend into the ebb and flow of mainstream culture and giving the viewer a feeling of comfort and attraction towards the trend. Similar to the way media glamorizes specific fashion tastes over others, it has glamorized the act of branding the human body with a “popular” corporate name. Celebrities are one way trends can become endorsed into society because they have authority and are constantly on public display. A famous singer Lil’ Kim (as seen below) was even featured in Rolling Stones magazine with the Louis Vuitton symbol imprinted all over her body. From the second a person places a corporation’s logo on their flesh, while media may give off the impression that the individual is singling themselves out as unique beings, in reality, they are highlighting their shared identity at the expense of masking personal representations of individuality.

At the forefront of the trend is the freedom of expression and the boundless measures individuals may take to communicate the whole of their identity to others. Corporate logo tattoos provide a viable channel whereby one can broadcast their connection with a social entity. When present on a body, corporate logo graphics are a way of associating with the governing discourse of consumer culture. The problem, however, is that the trend has created this connection at the expense of individuality whereby the force of media has immediately normalized it and socially accepted the concept. As you can see advertising can take place on many levels, but when will media draw line between advertising trends that will flourish in American society versus trends that will consume every aspect of individual identity? Will we continue to lose sight of our individuality and ultimately end up having to sell our souls to corporate America? Consider the name of the website www.leaseyourbody.com. How far is American consumer culture from commodifying our body parts and selling them to the same corporations that are paying humans to brand their name on our flesh? Exactly how far is too far?